Selective transparency at the Fed

Tags:

It’s something of a dissonant communications strategy: Fed officials are willing to tell us what they think will happen three years from now, but not what they discussed three years ago.

The Federal Reserve’s public relations arm holds up the chairmanship of Ben Bernanke as a model of transparency. And it’s true. Press conferences and federal funds rate forecasts are major steps forward for a central bank that until the mid-1990s didn’t even tell the markets what it was doing with interest rates.

Still, the old habits of secrecy die hard. Monetary policy transparency aside, the Fed has remained adamantly opaque in other ways – to the point that it took a Bloomberg News lawsuit for it to name the recipients of emergency era loans.

Similarly, it took a Freedom of Information Act request from MSNBC and The Huffington Post to obtain a mostly blacked out version of transcripts for Fed meetings during the worst of the U.S. financial crisis. The Fed only releases full transcripts of its meetings with a five year lag, arguing that this allows policymakers to conduct their discussions more freely.

New research from economists Xavier Freixa and Christian Laux examining the nature of regulatory failures during the crisis makes an interesting distinction between mere disclosure, the raw release of data, and transparency, which is a more directed effort to communicate that information to the public.

We interpret disclosure as providing information, while transparency arises when the information is effective in reaching the market, being adequately interpreted and used.

“We interpret disclosure as providing information, while transparency arises when the information is effective in reaching the market, being adequately interpreted and used.”

In other words, transparency only happens when you agree with the Fed’s all-knowing interpretation. If we give you the data before you would be likely to agree with us, that would be opaque disclosure.